Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Refusing Scheduled Tribe Status To A Christian
The Kerala High Court has set aside a report of the Kerala Institute for Research Training & Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (KIRTADS) which held that the petitioner before the High Court does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Paniya community of Kerala and that she belongs to Orthodox Syrian Christian community.
The Court has directed the authorities to reconsider the matter while relying on a judgment of the Madras High Court, delivered in the context of a person claiming to belong to a Scheduled Caste, that conversion from one religion to another religion will not change the caste of a person.
Justice Viju Abraham noted, “The petitioner relying on the judgment in S.Paul Raj v. Tahsildar [2021 SCC Madras Online 6091], would contend that conversion from one religion to another religion will not change a caste of a person, which he belongs and therefore, it was contended that the petitioner was baptised as per the christian rites, is not a reason to hold that there is a change of the caste of a person which he/she belongs to. Taking all theses aspects into consideration, I am of the opinion that Exts.P12 and P14 reports by the 2nd respondent has been finalised without adverting to the crucial and relevant facts and without conducting a proper enquiry”.
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Government Pleader Sunilkumar Kuriakose appeared for the respondents.
As per the Petitioner, she was born in the Paniya community and raised as per the traditions of the tribe. The mother of the Petitioner belongs to a Hindu Paniya Community and the father belongs to Orthodox Syrian Christian Community (OSCC). The OSCC excommunicated Petitioner’s family and therefore the Petitioner was raised by the Paniya community, which resulted in them being discriminated against socially as well as culturally and has contributed to their socio-economic backwardness. The Petitioner applied for a community certificate to KIRTADS but her plea was rejected without giving opportunity to present her case.
The Court held that the Government and the Scrutiny Committee have not adverted the relevant facts of the case and certificates issued by the head of the Govindamala Paniya Tribal Colony were not taken into consideration.
“In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the report has been prepared without adverting to the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. The Scrutiny Committee as well as the Government has accepted the report in toto without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P16 reply statement. Even the certificates issued by the head(Moopan) of the Govindamala Paniya Tribal Colony, which are produced as Exts.P10 and P11, were also not taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P14 report”, the Court observed.
The Court directed the concerned authorities to submit another report, after providing an opportunity to the Petitioner and after conducting a proper enquiry of the matter.
In this context, the Court noted, “Taking all theses aspects into consideration, I am of the opinion that Exts.P12 and P14 reports by the 2nd respondent has been finalised without adverting to the crucial and relevant facts and without conducting a proper enquiry. Therefore, the said report as well as the consequential order passed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as the Government are liable to be interfered with. Therefore, Exts. P7, P12, P14, P15 and P17 are set aside with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter and submit a report, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after conducting a proper enquiry in the matter”.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and directed the concerned authorities to complete such proceedings within six months from the date of the judgement.
Cause Title: Rebeka Mathai v State of Kerala (2023: KER: 39057)
